RyanWard said:
It's just that when reading online about what others say about the IQ of the D3/D700, it seems that there is a visible difference in the tonal quality of the images

Indeed there is. The D7000 has a more natural white balance than either D700 or D3.
The D3S is another story (better WB than D700/D3 as well). When it comes to AF acquisition speed, my D7000 beats my friends D700 in good lighting and his D3S beats both other cameras (surprise, surprise..). In worse lighting the D7000 and D700 are about the same in AF acquisition speed using same glassware.

Hi John,

Thank you for the reply. I think what I am going to do for now is to get 2 more speedlights and think about either the 800 or the 700. I could do the 700 right now with lenses, but I do use the 7000 for video in my business. I thought about getting a camcorder for that part, but the 800 will have video so I might just wait and see what the images look like. @36 MP and even the same size pixels as the 7000 it should be better not just at the pixel level, but overall as I'm sure their will have been tech improvements since the 7000 was R&D'd.

D4 is out of range price wise for my needs.

Hi Ryan,
I have both D700 and D7000 and I use both of them in my wedding photography (using both of them for about 7 weddings so far). The image IQ on D700 is much better. I processed images on LR3 and CS5 as well as ViewNX + capture NX2 depends on my need - the later gives me more clarity for the images but the time to process them is a pain, but I still see IQ on D700 is surpassed IQ on D7000 a lot. The more I used D7000, the less I like it comparing to D700.
Cons:
1)I shoot D7000 with NIkon 24-70mm F2.8 in daylight about 11AM to 2PM in California in shaded area, zoom 100%, I still see some kind of noise in the image.
2) Shooting in low light the noise is getting much worser than D700
3) 39 points AF system is not accurate as in D700
4) Pretty hard to focus a lot in low light shooting, sometimes cannot focus at all whereas D700 works just fine.
Pros:
1) Color, constrast is beautiful.

I don't use much of them for video.

I guess you should rent it for few days and shoot in different conditions to see for yourself. For me, I will sell my D7000 as soon as the D800 come out.

Yep, I agree with the lighting. Seems to be a much better option. More light also = lower ISO which means better IQ. Ideally, you want to take a couple of exposures, not a bunch...

Thanks to everyone!

I am a bit curious, why is ISO not an option? There are no cameras in the Nikon line with less read noise at ISO 100 so noise is not the problem nor is having only 3 bracketed shots. If you really need 6 or more a single click of the mode switch from U1 to U2 after the first 3 frames will allow another 3 frames offset in exposure your preferred step amount. I agree with the prior comments, heavy HDR detracts from real estate presentations. With any scene, taking command of the lighting trumps any differences that a camera body or even a lens would contribute.
Lenses and focus...what DOF are you needing? It seems that the long exposures would solve that problem also, allowing stopping down further so any lens would perform better. Yes, the 14-24 is a great lens and is reason enough to buy a D700 or D3s but you need wider than 14. Focus is not much of a problem with stopped down wide angles, MF might be easier. The main issue with difference WA lenses is distortion that is correctable, too bad there are no PC lenses that are wide enough for interiors on DX, another reason to look for FX. So, really the only reason you might want to switch is field of view, not noise or IQ.
Taking some time to put together a portable lighting kit, with a number of speedlights, cLS or radio trigger- your choice, gels, gaffers tape, a few rolled up snoots, a grid or two, various clamps, bungees, a fold up reflector or two and a stand or two, all neatly arranged for easy access in a roll-on suitcase or duffle-bag would solve your problems quite handily and cost less than a new body, be a longer term solution and separate your work from your competitors who still thing the camera makes the difference.
If you did change bodies and lenses you would still need to address the light situation and take control of it. Or from another perspective, a D7000 with great lighting will run circles around a Dxx or Dx anything with poor light.(you can substitute any camera you want into that in place of "D7000")
Good luck and have fun doing it....

That's 2 flashes in that shot. I could use 2 more and that may be a better way to go...I needed one in the doorway on the top right of that image. I ended up using a new layer with just the doorway and blowing it up with light and then using a gaussian blur to remove the noise from bringing up the light so much in it. I've always thought one more flash would do, but 2 more would be even better!

I don't find Lightroom to be complicated, but I just feel I get better results with Capture - just me though. Everyone has a workflow they like.

I think just talking this out on the forum has me decided that I should just bring more light to the room rather than switching bodies...

Funny how sometimes just talking about things with people you come to the same conclusion that you knew was right from the beginning but didn't want to hear.

Oh well, so much for going full frame for the time being. I appreciate the thoughts and ideas.

go easy on the HDR, i see a lot of real estate HDR lately, and it is over done and doesn't look natural. I am also in the market for a new house (hense looking at photos), and I find over the top HDR less appealing in an image of a house than a correctly exposed image. try a polarizer or a graduated ND filter.

that said, if I was shooting real estate i would take a whole swag (bag) of lights to a shoot, probably with pocket wizards so i can trigger them and light the hall etc.

i terms of a camera, i would say you will be much better off with lights.

RyanWard said:
I actually tried this shot at ISO 100, but I didn't have enough flash power so I had to lift it in post. I started in Capture and finished in photoshop. I have Lightroom, but I can't ever seem to get results that I like as much as using Capture.</blockqubeote>

A second or more powerful flash is going to be a lot cheaper than D700

Light Room 3 is a complicated but fantastic program. Matt Kloskowski has some very good on line training videos, covering getting the very best out of it

I typically prefer to shoot with off camera flash, but ISO 100 is not really an option - although I could pick up a couple of more flashes and it might be possible...and it may be cheaper than upgrading to a 700.

My technique is good, I shoot RAW and the images overall are superb.

I think I may just be splitting hairs on this and I'm starting to think that there won't be enough of an increase in IQ to make a difference.

Although I prefer flash to HDR, I have tried it some with RAW images creating multiple files, but it introduces more noise than it would by actually taking 7-9 photos. This was really a side point.

It doesn't sound like there would be much IQ difference by switching to a 700, but I may rent one to see. Just to see what you think, here is a link to a photo I took last week when my daughter was home sick with me and I was playing around. I actually tried this shot at ISO 100, but I didn't have enough flash power so I had to lift it in post. I started in Capture and finished in photoshop. I have Lightroom, but I can't ever seem to get results that I like as much as using Capture. This is a full size jpeg with to SB-600's camera left and right bounced backwards to reflect back on the scene. I'm not at my computer with my actual files, I just happened to have this one in Dropbox so I uploaded it to one of my websites. I exposed for the light on the right side and brought as much flash power as I had. I could have opened the aperture up a little, but not too much more. If you view it large, you will see the noise. A little of it may be sharpening, but it's got a good bit of noise. Look in particular at the wood shelf under the TV and no, the image on the screen is not masked in.

http:// http://www.ryanwardenterprises DOT com/test-100-iso.jpg (not sure about links here so I separated it....)

I went from a D90 to a D700 there was a very big difference in IQ I have not use a D7000 much but from what I have read the IQ is a lot better than the D90 but not as good as the D700. So going up to a D700 will be an improvement

For real estate interiors, I use a Nikkor 16-35 f4 @ 16mm and stopped down to f8 @ ISO 800 with up to 3 SB 900s with diffusers

Post production is done in LR3 and CS5

when shooting Kids few few shots are lost because of focus but I do use spot rather than matrix

hope this helps

Having the D7000 myself I've thought about the natural progression of things in upgrading to a D700. Main motivation there has been possibly a stop of extra usable ISO and losing the crop factor. Honestly I don't think that's enough for me to justify the upgrade. (In my case I'd be keeping my D7000 and selling my current backup, a D5000.) If you really wholly need the bleeding edge of wide, the 14-24 on full frame so it isn't "just" a 21-36mm lens, then full frame should be your choice. For me though, I can't justify $2500 or so worth of new camera. More fast glass (like the 24mm f/1.4) would let me shoot in slightly lower light but as is I'm comfortable with the results I get with a properly exposed / slightly overexposed ISO 3200-6400 shot from the D7000. At least with the way I shoot too, I value 100% viewfinder coverage which the D700 doesn't have.

Hi I did a lot of research before I got my D7000, I was considering the D700 but the number of features in the D7000 tipped the balance for me. At the iso ranges you mentioned 200-640 there should be insignificant differences between the D700 and D7000. At higher ISO The D700 pulls ahead of the D7000. I used to do some Real estate photography as well, and I used my S5Pro for that at that time. (check it out.. Built in HDR in one shot!)

I love my D7000! but you are right! It is weaker in the exact areas you mentioned. At low light the focusing is a bit off sometimes. I think the new firmware fixed it a bit.
The bracketing with only 3 frames, slightly limits the ability for full scale HDR. However, if you shoot in raw you can actually get 2 or 3 images from each raw image resulting in 6-9 images that you can feed into your HDR software, or you can just do it the usual way with a good tripod and take your 7 shots with manual adjustments :-) many people prefer to do it that way anyway, whatever the camera. You will need to balance that against the lower Dynamic Range from the D700. The D7000 has the second highest DR in the nikon range, the highest is the D3x (the highest DR is still the old S5pro!)
With regard to the slight grain at the ISO ranges 200-640. Do try to use ISO 100 if possible. You are already using a tripod (right?) so shutter speed is not really an issue. at ISO 100 the D7000's DR is at its best as well.

Like JonnyA says I dont think the 17-50 is an issue.

Oh one more thing, I use the Quiet mode whenever possible, I find that the normal mode tends to introduce movement blur at times. Like all things, the D7000 is a compromise.. but, it generally has much less compromises than most cameras, including the D700.

+1 with Golf - it sounds more of setup, understanding conditions, etc. than the tools. Depending on the end use maybe a 700 may help but it sounds like what you have, would be fine. "does not make an ideal platform to shoot professional quality HDR because of the bracketing limitations" Actually any camera is great for HDR. Bracketing options are just the same as manually doing it, but just a bit faster. HDR has much more to do with the processing than the camera.

At that iso you are not going to see much difference and that is the real gain of the D700.

Spending a smaller amount on $$ for a couple of lessons on HDR and maybe a class or two on your camera would be much better used. I still take a few classes especially on processing images.

Hello RyanWard,

The issues you are having has nothing to do with the camera...that being the D7000. It all has to do with the settings and setup in which your are taking your shots. I do not know your skill level, thus do not take my comment as insults...for that is not my intention.

Simply put, you need to master your exposure setting (ISO, shutter speed and apature) with all your lenses. Shot in RAW so you can play with your white balance in post. Get these techniques down and you wont need to shot HDR or part with cash for a different body. Keep in mind that the D7000, moreover, any DX body, will use the best (a.k.a sweet spot) part of any FX lens, i.e the 24-70/14-24/70-200 2.8...etc..etc. Given that I own the D7000, as well as the mentioned lens, I know this to be true.

Cheers...

The 18-55 2.8 isn't worth the money or weight increase over the tamron 17-50, IMO.

Have you considered getting some flashes to take advantage of the Nikon CLS?

My struggle is that I actually use the video feature and that, I think, is my big hold up. I use it to shoot real estate listing videos and neighborhood videos as well as some other video blog type stuff and the 7000 works great for that. Better than great really.

Perhaps it would be best if I just waited about 12 months, saved up the cash and bought one of the new models...

14-24 is beautiful for real estate...almost a good enough reason to switch, but the Tokina is the best I have found on DX (I tested the nikon 10-24, Sigma 10-20 and the Tamron 10-24 wide open, f8 and f16 and the Tokina looked better to me in the corners and in the center in all the images. The downfall is the CA which is mostly correctable) in my tests.

I still can't help but think of the soft/missed shots in low light too...

The 14-24 is literally the best wide angle lens in the world (for non medium format cameras), it easily blows the Tokina out of the water in terms of performance. FX does have some IQ differences, but the difference between the D700 and D7000 isn't that big. I would still take the D700 over the D7000, but that's just me.

What about detail in highlights? It seems the 7000 is a little flat here. For example, I shot some pictures at a Christmas party and the beard on the guy in the santa costume was pretty flat and lacking detail.

So, benefits of FF would be better wide angle glass (14-24) over my Tokina 11-16, shallower DOF and better low light focusing, but not a major visible difference in other areas of IQ.

Would that be about right?

Now for what I would want in a year...excellent point and something to consider.

Thanks,

If you shoot wide angle a lot, go FX. FX wide angle lenses are generally better. A lot of people think that ISO performance is the only reason to switch, while it is not.

I cant't speak from ownership experience with a D700 but I personally would reconsider buying it at this point. Instead you should definitely consider at least trying Nikon f/2.8 glass for your D7000. Absolutely love the IQ from the 24-70mm f/2.8 on my D7K. I realize that real estate photography usually requires wider lenses so you might want to give the Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8 some serious thought. Although, It would really be nice if Nikon were to update that lens with Nano coating. If that happened then I would consider getting that. I'm waiting to see what announcements are coming in the next few months.

I've seen an image comparison on someone's internet website between the D700 and the D7000 and I suppose the IQ is slightly better from the D700 but you've pretty much gotta be scrutinizing hard and strong to see it.

The question is - if you get a pre-owned D700 now because the price is right - what will your thoughts be in a year after newer tech has been slathered across the DSLR arena?

Maybe I didn't do a good enough job explaining. I think the photos are excellent and I use Photoshop, Lightroom and Capture NX2 to process.

It's just that when reading online about what others say about the IQ of the D3/D700, it seems that there is a visible difference in the tonal quality of the images and the D7000 does not make an ideal platform to shoot professional quality HDR because of the bracketing limitations. Sure, it's possible, but -2 0 +2 brackets are just too far apart to keep good color fidelity. It would be better to use 7-9 1 stop brackets and that means slight shifts in the camera on the D7000.

I may need to rent one and do a test to see for myself, but I was hoping that maybe someone has done a comprehensive A/B test of rht type of photography I typically do.

Most of the real estate shots are between ISO 200-640 with a couple of off camera flashes and it seems that if I could shoot at 100 it would be great, but that's not practical.

I also realize that I am being somewhat picky, but if there is a real advantage in IQ, I think it would be worth considering and the sale of the 7000 + $500 could purchase a gently used 700.

I could post a sample image, but I would need to figure out how to do so and will only if someone would like to see for themselves...

A quick reply while taking a work break.

D7000 came out just a year ago.. with pro level bleeding edge ISO range and picture quality.
I am far from an expert, but my initial thought is your problems have more to do with technique than equipment, and buying another camera upgrade won't solve.

I'm just not sure that I will get MUCH of a visible difference in IQ.

I do 2 things mostly; real estate with a wide angle lens and off camera flashes usually shot between IS 200-640 and handheld stuff with a Tamron 17-50 2.8 non VC.

When I get to looking at the real estate images, I do see noise at views 50% or larger.

When I shoot walk around stuff or my kids, in less than ideal lighting conditions, I do get quite a few missed shots.

So, I'm curious if the autofocus on the 700 would improve this (would need the 24-70) or if perhaps the misfocused shots could be remedied by switching the the Nikkor 17-55 2.8 and if I would really see any visible improvements in IQ by going to the 700 over the 7000.

Thanks in advance,

Ryan

The D4 and D800 are going to be out of my price range at least for the next 12-18 months...